Author
Topic: 6D Autofocus not impressive (Read 202144 times)

I checked and there is a BIG difference in the AF performance of my friend's 6D as compared to mine. His 6D's outer focus points lock on quite well but mine don't seem to be anywhere as good. I'm packing my 6D off to Canon service center tomorrow - it's under warranty.

Just a quick update ... I got a call from the Canon service center. My 6D AF sensor is malfunctioning and they are going to replace it.

My problems with the AF were unique after all.

Cheers ... J.R.

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony

I checked and there is a BIG difference in the AF performance of my friend's 6D as compared to mine. His 6D's outer focus points lock on quite well but mine don't seem to be anywhere as good. I'm packing my 6D off to Canon service center tomorrow - it's under warranty.

Just a quick update ... I got a call from the Canon service center. My 6D AF sensor is malfunctioning and they are going to replace it.

My problems with the AF were unique after all.

Cheers ... J.R.

I'm glad your problem was fixable. As I have demonstrated, I don't have any real issues with the outer points. I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised when your camera returns.

If so, then in addition to the manufacturing cost, you also have the cost of assembling the guts inside a one-piece case instead of being able to assemble the case in pieces around the guts. Depending on what their manufacturing processes look like, the additional costs could be considerable (or not), particularly if the milled design requires a lot of hand assembly where the plastic design does not. Obviously I don't know whether that's an issue or not.

This is ot, but I guess the af issue has been discussed to death...

.. so concerning the metal framing: Good point, and it might be an issue for production because manufacturers seem to tend to leave the front open. With Nikon d7000, this is nearly a scam because they announce the camera as metal but show only top & back diagrams, and for a reason - the front is plastic. I don't know how much metal there is in the 6d except for the plastic top, I cannot see it from the Canon sealing schematics.

And, with all due respect, the implication that owner's bias trumps the experience they have through ownership is fallacious. If I own something that isn't actually good, I quickly sell it and replace it with something that is. It's that simple.

Without putting too fine a point on it, in my very humble opinion you are mistaken because there is no alternative to the 6d with Canon and in this price range except for the outdated 5d2. So what would someone who's unhappy with the 6d replace it with? Sell all glass and buy Nikon? Spend €1000 + 6d loss more and get a 5d3? See - it isn't that simple. Plus many people are simply attached to things once they bought it, I know I am.

I have an issue with this, because, its not as if there is no alternative, just not in this price range. it's like that with all things, you get this for that, and if you want more you have to step it up to the next package. To use my own business as an analogy - my mid level package offers ceremony and full reception coverage, but if you want ceremony prep, you move to the next tier, you want a second shooter, you move to the next tier. Now I am not as stringent as canon, and, for me its not like i have to retool my whole factory just to offer a compromise in my packages, but either way - the analogy holds true. You can't act like there are no other options - because there are! Even in the 6d price range or less, you want FF but don't have the dough you can find product...i see the 1dmk2 and the 1ds at about $650 - 1dsmk2 for around $1500, and there are 1dsmk3 floating around the $2600 range.

So, you only option is far from selling you gear and moving to nikon, and real world ---the d600's only real AF advantage is in servo mode because of the extra points, but the spread of those points is about the same - so if your trying to shoot sports on a budget or wildlife and need tracking, then you want a 7d or a mk3 or a d600. But, the d600 offers no advantage for the "low light fast prime lens far corner composition and I don't want to focus and recompose or crop in post issue."

Back to my original issue with your comments though, it sounds like you just want a mk3 for the price of a 6d, and it also sounds like you think the d600 is more on par with the mk3 too, which isn't true. Many of the 6'd shortcoming are in the d600 too:

Max shutter speed - 1/4000max sync speed - 1/200memory cards - SD

And - native ISO on the d600 is 6400 ---you have to use the expansion to boost it to 25,600.

So, the d600, while yes it is a fine camera and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to any shooters who currently shoot with nikon gear, but ---I wouldn't recommend switching systems based on AF alone.

Again, kind of sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. With all things in photography you have to make compromises unless you have an unlimited budget. Like when i made my 70-200 decision, I couldn't afford the IS version at the time ---compromise, the f4IS and the f2.8 non IS were right in the same ballpark - so I made the compromise of losing IS in favor of the 2.8 aperture. When I bought my 6d, I was looking for a backup body that could hold its own in most situations with my mk3. My budget just couldn't afford a second mk3, so I compromised and went with the 6d. This list can go on and on...we can't expect canon or nikon to tailor make our products to each of our personal needs and desires. So we balance the decision based on wants vs needs vs available budget.

I chose the 6D anticipating an upgrade in the near future for the reasons cited relative to wildlife. The 6D will be an excellent second camera for those things it does exceedingly well and I'm waiting on Canon for a new body. No regrets not getting the 5D3 since it's heavier and bulkier and not what I want for the second camera which will be more scenic once I have a new body.

I've lived my whole life repairing and fixing everything under the sun on a very tight budget (no holidays etc.) and now at 64 I'm loving the fact that I have been able to afford the 6D and a 300 II lens and extenders (light weight poor man's 600) and I'm thrilled to death with the results (simply accepting the AF). I came from Nikon believing that the Canon lenses have the edge and I won't be switching back. Canon's ergonomics are better as well.

I checked and there is a BIG difference in the AF performance of my friend's 6D as compared to mine. His 6D's outer focus points lock on quite well but mine don't seem to be anywhere as good. I'm packing my 6D off to Canon service center tomorrow - it's under warranty.

Just a quick update ... I got a call from the Canon service center. My 6D AF sensor is malfunctioning and they are going to replace it.

My problems with the AF were unique after all.

Cheers ... J.R.

I'm glad your problem was fixable. As I have demonstrated, I don't have any real issues with the outer points. I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised when your camera returns.

So there was an issue after all, interesting. I'm glad mine works well. Buying electronics can always be hit or miss. I'm about to return a TV which evidently is designed to not work very well...because they don't think people will notice the flaw. Canon thankfully is known a bit better for excellence, than Samsung...

Back to my original issue with your comments though, it sounds like you just want a mk3 for the price of a 6d, and it also sounds like you think the d600 is more on par with the mk3 too, which isn't true.

You've misunderstood me there, the d600 is a 6d competitor because of the price range alone, let alone the vastly different specs.

So, the d600, while yes it is a fine camera and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to any shooters who currently shoot with nikon gear, but ---I wouldn't recommend switching systems based on AF alone.

I wouldn't either, that's why I'll stay with Canon (and because of Magic Lantern), but it's an important difference nevertheless and the topic of this whole thread.

Again, kind of sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. With all things in photography you have to make compromises unless you have an unlimited budget.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a cake and eat it at the same time :-) ...

... but I'm well aware of the need to compromise, that's why I've got my current equipment: 60d (instead of 7d2), 70-300L (instead of 70-200L+extenders), 17-40L (instead of 16-35L), 100 non-L macro (only recently upgraded it to the L), 430ex2 (only just bought a "big" flash). You see, I'm putting much though into what I really need and what can afford at a given time.

This list can go on and on...we can't expect canon or nikon to tailor make our products to each of our personal needs and desires. So we balance the decision based on wants vs needs vs available budget.

As a second camera the 6d is just fine, and I'll be sure to keep my 60d along when I buy the 6d - but it is a rather specialized product, while the Nikon is a more "overall" competent model if you only have one camera body.

I feel Nikon has a more coherent setup here, the less expensive camera has cut specs across the board, while Canon chose to add some consumer features (gps, wifi), cut some things a lot (esp. af) while keeping other specs on par with the more expensive model. That's the cause of the whole 6d "value" discussion - if you happen to want/need what the 6d delivers you're happy, if you expect more of an upgrade over the 5d2 in this price range in other areas you might be a little set back and wait for the price to drop some.

Back to my original issue with your comments though, it sounds like you just want a mk3 for the price of a 6d, and it also sounds like you think the d600 is more on par with the mk3 too, which isn't true.

You've misunderstood me there, the d600 is a 6d competitor because of the price range alone, let alone the vastly different specs.

Price range and overall capabilites...LOL...it's funny because I just shot a wedding and my second shooter had a d3s and a d4...you know what...my 6d images stand up very nicely against these 2 upper end nikon bodies...

6d only has 1/180s x-sync, d600 has *two* sd-card slots, the latter a decisive difference for business shoting.

1/180th vs 1/200th...that hardly makes a difference in real world shooting. 2 slots would have been nicer...but my point there was that neither of these bodies use CF cards. I'd rather have 1 CF slot..

So, the d600, while yes it is a fine camera and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to any shooters who currently shoot with nikon gear, but ---I wouldn't recommend switching systems based on AF alone.

I wouldn't either, that's why I'll stay with Canon (and because of Magic Lantern), but it's an important difference nevertheless and the topic of this whole thread.

Again, kind of sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. With all things in photography you have to make compromises unless you have an unlimited budget.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a cake and eat it at the same time :-) ...Yeah, it would be great, but...lol. we are talking about likelihood here!!!!! Canon won't be adding another 2k FF, not until it's time to talk 6d2...

... but I'm well aware of the need to compromise, that's why I've got my current equipment: 60d (instead of 7d2), 70-300L (instead of 70-200L+extenders), 17-40L (instead of 16-35L), 100 non-L macro (only recently upgraded it to the L), 430ex2 (only just bought a "big" flash). You see, I'm putting much though into what I really need and what can afford at a given time.

there is no 7d2!!!! not yet at any rate. And the price of that will most likelyu be close to, or equal the cost of a 6d. So unless your shooting sports and need the frame rate, my bet is that the 6d will still be better for those that shoot weddings - APS-C sensors, unless canon has one hell of an update to them, I don't see an APS-C body pumping out great images at ISO 6400 or greater.

This list can go on and on...we can't expect canon or nikon to tailor make our products to each of our personal needs and desires. So we balance the decision based on wants vs needs vs available budget.

As a second camera the 6d is just fine, and I'll be sure to keep my 60d along when I buy the 6d - but it is a rather specialized product, while the Nikon is a more "overall" competent model if you only have one camera body.

The only area I think the d600 really edges out the 6d is in servo mode tracking, due to the density of AF points. the spread of those points is really no different though, so tracking is better, but you still aren't getting that extreme corner framed shot though

I feel Nikon has a more coherent setup here, the less expensive camera has cut specs across the board, while Canon chose to add some consumer features (gps, wifi), cut some things a lot (esp. af) while keeping other specs on par with the more expensive model. That's the cause of the whole 6d "value" discussion - if you happen to want/need what the 6d delivers you're happy, if you expect more of an upgrade over the 5d2 in this price range in other areas you might be a little set back and wait for the price to drop some.

both of these camera have cut specs! They are both cheaper versions of their 2nd tier FF line. Compare the d600 to the d800, and then read the nikon forums and talk to nikon shooters and you definitely find that yes ---the grass is in fact always greener because the many of nikon folks wanted the d800 to be a d700 with better AF and ISO performance - what they got was a MP bloated beast which some are happy with, but not all by a long shot. The d600 is more what d700 users were looking for, but gimped (1/4000th SS limit, no sync port, SD only, less rugged build).

As to that last statement...5d2 users have their upgrade...its the 5d3! Remember that when the 5d2 was launched it was very close to 3k in price. The successor to the 5d2 is the 5d3 - and because the mk3 was such a large upgrade both in specs and cost, and the market was calling for a cheaper FF that wasn't 'used,' so now we have a 6d. I'd be willign to bet that nikon's reasoning with the d600 is similar.

see inside quote for replies...

And a PS...attached is one image that i do think is telling in regards to the 6d's AF ---I was shooting a comdey show, just waiting fort he headliner to come on and said lets see what happens. Settings --

ISO 25,600, f2.8, 1/40th ---no post processing (simply exporting the RAW to jpeg). It was dark as hell in there, yes it is center point...no flash for AF assist either. I was using my 70-200 which does not have IS so I couldn't go much below 1/40th, hence why its dark...the point is...the AF should have been hunting there, but it didn't!!!

Back to my original issue with your comments though, it sounds like you just want a mk3 for the price of a 6d, and it also sounds like you think the d600 is more on par with the mk3 too, which isn't true.

You've misunderstood me there, the d600 is a 6d competitor because of the price range alone, let alone the vastly different specs.

Price range and overall capabilites...LOL...it's funny because I just shot a wedding and my second shooter had a d3s and a d4...you know what...my 6d images stand up very nicely against these 2 upper end nikon bodies...

6d only has 1/180s x-sync, d600 has *two* sd-card slots, the latter a decisive difference for business shoting.

1/180th vs 1/200th...that hardly makes a difference in real world shooting. 2 slots would have been nicer...but my point there was that neither of these bodies use CF cards. I'd rather have 1 CF slot..

So, the d600, while yes it is a fine camera and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to any shooters who currently shoot with nikon gear, but ---I wouldn't recommend switching systems based on AF alone.

I wouldn't either, that's why I'll stay with Canon (and because of Magic Lantern), but it's an important difference nevertheless and the topic of this whole thread.

Again, kind of sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. With all things in photography you have to make compromises unless you have an unlimited budget.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a cake and eat it at the same time :-) ...Yeah, it would be great, but...lol. we are talking about likelihood here!!!!! Canon won't be adding another 2k FF, not until it's time to talk 6d2...

... but I'm well aware of the need to compromise, that's why I've got my current equipment: 60d (instead of 7d2), 70-300L (instead of 70-200L+extenders), 17-40L (instead of 16-35L), 100 non-L macro (only recently upgraded it to the L), 430ex2 (only just bought a "big" flash). You see, I'm putting much though into what I really need and what can afford at a given time.

there is no 7d2!!!! not yet at any rate. And the price of that will most likelyu be close to, or equal the cost of a 6d. So unless your shooting sports and need the frame rate, my bet is that the 6d will still be better for those that shoot weddings - APS-C sensors, unless canon has one hell of an update to them, I don't see an APS-C body pumping out great images at ISO 6400 or greater.

This list can go on and on...we can't expect canon or nikon to tailor make our products to each of our personal needs and desires. So we balance the decision based on wants vs needs vs available budget.

As a second camera the 6d is just fine, and I'll be sure to keep my 60d along when I buy the 6d - but it is a rather specialized product, while the Nikon is a more "overall" competent model if you only have one camera body.

The only area I think the d600 really edges out the 6d is in servo mode tracking, due to the density of AF points. the spread of those points is really no different though, so tracking is better, but you still aren't getting that extreme corner framed shot though

I feel Nikon has a more coherent setup here, the less expensive camera has cut specs across the board, while Canon chose to add some consumer features (gps, wifi), cut some things a lot (esp. af) while keeping other specs on par with the more expensive model. That's the cause of the whole 6d "value" discussion - if you happen to want/need what the 6d delivers you're happy, if you expect more of an upgrade over the 5d2 in this price range in other areas you might be a little set back and wait for the price to drop some.

both of these camera have cut specs! They are both cheaper versions of their 2nd tier FF line. Compare the d600 to the d800, and then read the nikon forums and talk to nikon shooters and you definitely find that yes ---the grass is in fact always greener because the many of nikon folks wanted the d800 to be a d700 with better AF and ISO performance - what they got was a MP bloated beast which some are happy with, but not all by a long shot. The d600 is more what d700 users were looking for, but gimped (1/4000th SS limit, no sync port, SD only, less rugged build).

As to that last statement...5d2 users have their upgrade...its the 5d3! Remember that when the 5d2 was launched it was very close to 3k in price. The successor to the 5d2 is the 5d3 - and because the mk3 was such a large upgrade both in specs and cost, and the market was calling for a cheaper FF that wasn't 'used,' so now we have a 6d. I'd be willign to bet that nikon's reasoning with the d600 is similar.

see inside quote for replies...

And a PS...attached is one image that i do think is telling in regards to the 6d's AF ---I was shooting a comdey show, just waiting fort he headliner to come on and said lets see what happens. Settings --

ISO 25,600, f2.8, 1/40th ---no post processing (simply exporting the RAW to jpeg). It was dark as hell in there, yes it is center point...no flash for AF assist either. I was using my 70-200 which does not have IS so I couldn't go much below 1/40th, hence why its dark...the point is...the AF should have been hunting there, but it didn't!!!

Nice shot, and I've gotten mine to lock center AF in a much darker environment than that, and with an f/4 70-200, no less. It actually was able to AF easier with the 70-200 in the same darkness, than with my 135 f/2...which I found troubling.

Basically, my 6D can center-AF on something (relatively stationary) that requires ISO 102,400 for a 1/10 second exposure with an f/4 lens. That center point far exceeds the noise performance of the sensor.

As for the D600 having a "better" AF than the 6D...I've not read any pro reviews that call it superior. The only thing they think is superior is the sensor...based on the s/n ratio below ISO 1000. (Then they turn around and claim it has a better s/n ratio all the way up to 25k, but in their own sample pics it clearly is far inferior to the 6D).

But I say fine, if bright light, low ISO shooting is all you do (especially studio strobes), and you can tolerate the absurd Nikon ergonomics, you definitely should get the D600, or preferably D800, rather than the 6D, or the 5D3.

But if you shoot above ISO 1000 very often, forget Nikon altogether, unless you want to buy an older used D3S.

If you require the world's best autofocus, again, forget Nikon, and get a 1DX...just make sure you get a heavy discount, because it very well may be replaced in about 15 months or so.

1/180th vs 1/200th...that hardly makes a difference in real world shooting. 2 slots would have been nicer...but my point there was that neither of these bodies use CF cards. I'd rather have 1 CF slot..

I've got sd from the 60d, and I admit I don't see any inherent advantage of cf over sd, quite the other way around actually because of the size.

As for x-sync: Currently I'm very often shooting handheld macro @1/250s x-sync with my 60d because of the faster recycle time & higher power over hss plus motion stopping capability. Yes, of course 1/180s is not much less than 1/200s, but the point is that even 1/200s is rather slow and everyting less hurts. But that's a budget decision on Canon's side, Magic Lantern has figured out you cannot force the 6d to do 1/200s because of the slower shutter.

Typo on my side, I was talking of the 7d1 ... I meant to say that for a good all around combination you need two Canon cameras (except if you go for the 5d3): a 7d plus a 6d to have everything covered if you want low light capability and decent servo af.

both of these camera have cut specs! They are both cheaper versions of their 2nd tier FF line. Compare the d600 to the d800, and then read the nikon forums and talk to nikon shooters and you definitely find that yes ---the grass is in fact always greener

I never read traitorous Nikon forums or touch Nikon gear ;-p but I guess you're correct. A good point is that the af spread of the d600 isn't (much) larger than the 6d, so they'll have the same recompose issues with thin dof.

And a PS...attached is one image that i do think is telling in regards to the 6d's AF ---I was shooting a comdey show, just waiting fort he headliner to come on and said lets see what happens. Settings --

*Knock on wood* this thread has convinced me there are lots of happy 6d users out there and I'm sure I'll also be happy with the 6d if I wait until it has dropped to a decent price in Germany (currently much more expensive than in the US or the Nikon)...

... but as famous last words and concerning the topic I'm personally "not impressed" by what I read about the 2013 6d af and have tried for myself, because of no x-sensor @f2.8 (only one @f4+), low af spread and inability to make use of the enhanced precision of the newest lenses I'd rather label it as "decent with low light specialization".

I may have posted this a while back in another thread, can't recall. This is an early shot I did after buying the 6D...of a cheap tapestry, shot directly as a jpeg, at ISO 20,000, with my 135 f/2L, with no NR done in camera, and a little done in ACR. The white balance was auto if I remember correctly...which I also tried to correct in post. The available light is very far from white, very poor quality (the room lamp has an orange hood, and the bulb is a "warm fluorescent"). I was still amazed at the color I could extract from these conditions, at such a high ISO...with very little luminance noise in the final result...yet still plenty of detail. Chrominance noise is even easier to correct, but I may have left a bit to try to make the terribly dull color..."pop", such as it could...which wasn't much.

This 6D is never going to be the weak link in my kit. The weak link is me.

canon rumors FORUM

I understand Marsu42. I've been following all the news/rumors about the 6D months before it got released. I have a 550D right now. I'd call its AF system a 4,5 point AF system i.e. I basically only use the 4 AF points that are located at the (vertical) thirds of the image and now and then I use the center AF point (that's why I call it a 4,5 and not a 4 point AF system). I've been wanting to upgrade to something better for a while now. I don't take many pictures but I'm a perfectionist, so I want better gear (less noise, better AF performance...).

I have fancied the 6D for a long time because of its superior noise performance compared to the 5D3 and because of its WiFi remote shooting capability. I've even tried one out at a local store. AF point spread on the 6D wasn't horrible at all, but not great either. And while non-crosstype AF points can work fine, I've regularly found them limiting (even in good light).

I can justify the price of the 6D, but in my opinion the AF system of the 6D does not live up to its price unless you use the center AF point almost 90-95% of the time. I love the fact that the 5D3 has a lot of AF points located at the thirds of the image (horizontally and vertically), but I find it very hard to justify its price. I'm also afraid that Canon will release a "5D4" within the next 1-2 years with a lot more dynamic range at low ISO than the current 5D3.

That's why I'm not buying a new camera for now. However I'm keeping an eye out for the "to be announced" 70D and 7D2 though. And I'm also keeping the 5D3 and possibly the 6D in the back of my head.

I can justify the price of the 6D, but in my opinion the AF system of the 6D does not live up to its price unless you use the center AF point almost 90-95% of the time. I love the fact that the 5D3 has a lot of AF points located at the thirds of the image (horizontally and vertically), but I find it very hard to justify its price. I'm also afraid that Canon will release a "5D4" within the next 1-2 years with a lot more dynamic range at low ISO than the current 5D3.

That's why I'm not buying a new camera for now. However I'm keeping an eye out for the "to be announced" 70D and 7D2 though. And I'm also keeping the 5D3 and possibly the 6D in the back of my head.

Just a friendly observation - Your not buying a camera for the AF system alone, your buying a camera for the overall package, AF is just a part of it. Not saying that I think you should or should not buy it - but - I highly advice making a decision on it based on AF alone. Do a google search on 5d2 images and you will see stunning images ---the 6d is capable of producing equally stunning images...

as to product cycle, 5d3 should still have at least 2 more years on it, more likely 3. I view it like this, theres lots of talk about canons directions, rumors of a new sensor process to boost DR and MP. It would make sense to me to see canon putting all effort towards low ISO performance (because thats where nikon has the edge). If that's what they are in fact, then I can see a very nice formula - the 6d and 5d3 stepped up the high ISO game at the expense of improvements in MP and DR. So the next models may very well be the exact opposite. Better DR, higher MP, but limited high ISO (if test bodies are in the wild, then this phase is done and its on to the next project. They will then shift the R&D towards perfecting the new sensors to deal with high ISO work. Thats when you get your 5d4! Just a guess, but I think its a good guess!

As to the 6d, that may have a quicker update as its considered an entry level camera. Maybe that's the plan, the 6d2 will arrive next summer with 11 points but more of them cross points...pure speculation, they may keep it on a 2 year cycle. who knows, for all we know the specs on the 6d are actually because canon got caught with their pants down with the d600 and had to release something quick. and yup, that leads to the other factor - nikon - how will they play out their upgrades?

Either way, what I am ultimately trying to say -- with no announcement of a 7d2, its a rough gamble to wait to upgrade. The only other options seems to be a 70d, or whatever the big MP may bring. It would be silly of canon to not at least have the 70d ready to ship before the christmas season. I'd think that the 7d2 would be ready, but with no announcement or even real solid rumors, that may be a 2014 body. Same for big MP, who knows, 2014? 2015? So, keep that in mind. Waiting for the next big thing may be a dangerous game, especially because with the exception of the 70d, the price tags will be at least 2k